Skanska Office Tower | 380 Stuart Street | Back Bay

Thanks for the idea--- but no thanks to the 'The Dehumidifier'.---Get back to the drawing board.
 
I'm sure much of the criticism here is the same thrown at the Hancock tower 40 years ago: too modern, too different, too disrespectful of Back Bay. Things turned out just fine and it's impossible today to imagine BB without it. With maybe some adjustments to the ground floor programming this will turn out fine too.
 
b61cca9c92efa16bb891ee2289d8d7e6.jpg
 
stellarfun said:
The base is a rip-off of Saarinen's TWA terminal at JFK.
Click to expand...

Also reminds me of the interior of Koolhaas's Milstein Hall out at Cornell. It's got all these intersecting curves that come together at a point and then flow apart.

I think this would be best if it were taller. Not super tall, not even tall by almost any city's standards, but taller than its neighbors. Just a couple floors more.
 
No, not a Shure 55. More like a 50's Telefunken.
 
I like it a lot. Mostly for how jarringly out of place it is...which in this case is a good thing. It's like saying 'Boston is Boston...but it's still marching into the future'.
The stark juxtaposition is the statement. In the same way Trinity Church and the base of the 200 Clarendon/Hancock tower play off each other.

This building will literally always be alone, stylistically, unless the Shreve Building is ever replaced or we count the Copley Tower, which isn't that close. So it's like a dash of retro futurism in the middle of classic Boston. 75 feet taller would be perfect though
 
Last edited:
Where are the USB and DVI ports? If anything, this building looks like an Apple-inspired computer case I once looked into buying.

I love the contrast between this hyper-modern building and its neighbours.
 
Brad Plaid said:
I'm sure much of the criticism here is the same thrown at the Hancock tower 40 years ago: too modern, too different, too disrespectful of Back Bay. Things turned out just fine and it's impossible today to imagine BB without it. With maybe some adjustments to the ground floor programming this will turn out fine too.
Click to expand...

Fair point. Remember, Boston was a very different city back then, chasing investment, population in decline. It was commonly agreed, even among the naysayers, that Cobb's design was, nonetheless, pretty impressive. A future landmark next to a longstanding landmark. I don't see the naysayers saying the same about this building. Maybe I'm wrong.

Of course, the city will survive just fine if this new Hancock is built. The mix of old and new is what makes a city vibrant and relevent. And mistakes will be made. My point is more one of process. Cobb respected his building's neighbors and still made a strong statement. It does not appear to me that the same care has been taken with III.

If one really wants to make a fashion-forward statement, which some here seem to desire, then hire the talents known for just that sort of thing - Gang, Gehry, Diller-Scofidio, Zumthor - the list is long. Go for it. That's what Cobb did, and he was respected for it. (Until the windows started falling out.)

If we continue to erect the Kensingtons, the Suffolk Beacon Hills, the AVAs, for instance - we diminish our city. That sounds alarmist, perhaps hyperbolic, but it's true. Mediocrity, once accepted, spreads.

Not everything can be special, nor should it be. But the least we can expect from those in charge of how our city grows is that decisions made include more than simply the economics.
 
Would be interested to hear the architects for III discuss this proposal and their consideration for the relationship it will have to its surroundings.

Here's an excerpt from a Cobb explaination his design:

"we adopted a strategy of minimalism in the design of the Hancock Tower not for ideological reasons, but because the situation of the building demanded it. In the determined pursuit of our goal—to achieve a symbiosis between the church, the tower, and the square—we excluded everything that did not contribute directly to this end. For we believed that only thus could we temper the inherent arrogance of so large a building and endow it with a presence that might animate rather than oppress the urban scene."

I think the full read at the PEI COBB FREED site is worth it.
http://www.pcf-p.com/a/p/6710/s.html)
 
1. The problem with the entrance isn't so much the shape and retro-futurism (de gustibus...) , it's the scale. What's rendered is an entrance to anticipate from a mile away - in reality, however, it will be facing across a relatively narrow street. The small arches depicted above the garage ramp would be much more appropriate.

2. The liberty mutual gerbil tube works because its remarkably translucent, uses structural language from actual bridges (i.e. suspension) and is integrated well into the facades on both sides (hides the garage entrance a bit; surrounded by some strong qoining). Of these, this gerbil tube only hits 'translucent'. The rounded corners on the tube are dispiriting.
 
melkor said:
Not quite Zaha but trying in staid Boston. Don't get me wrong, in the Back Bay this does not fit.
Click to expand...
The need to be "different" is juvenile. And besides, who knows how outlandish the final product actually will be....may be even worse....I no longer trust renderings.
 
I kinda like it, but I will be surprised if the curves and bulges aren't designed out and we end up with a straight glass box in the end. I don't think this Jetson's building without the stilts would hurt this street any if it gets built.
 
gooseberry said:
I kinda like it, but I will be surprised if the curves and bulges aren't designed out and we end up with a straight glass box in the end. I don't think this Jetson's building without the stilts would hurt this street any if it gets built.
Click to expand...

I agree--I like it too, but its charms are definitely the somewhat retro curves.
 
The streetscape is wrong for Stuart Street. For the arched lobby to work you need some space to see it -- and Stuart is simply too narrow. The rendering is a big tease, because there is no way to ever get the stand away view shown.

Tower portion would be a nice addition, but the ground level is simply wrong for the location.
 
That thing looks like a subwoofer from the translucent iMac era in the late 90s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top